Photography: looking4poetry

Today the Guardian reported that the French have said adieu to Mademoiselle, deeming it “an unnecessary and unjustified reference to women’s marital status” which “should be phased out from official forms.”

The decision follows a campaign by French feminist groups, including Osez le féminisme, whose anti-rape campaign I was involved with while living in Paris. As such, it’s a campaign I’ve been following with interest in French news and comment articles, as well as the Guardian’s coverage. A comment piece I read in Le Monde before Christmas discussed the equivalent titles used by France’s European neighbours and cited the use of “Ms” as a third option for English women. It struck me as interesting that, rather than fighting for a third option of their own, French feminists have fought to only have one. Like the men.

Several years ago, my ex-boyfriend told me off (as in, got genuinely cross with me in a public place) for writing “Ms” on a form. It was a customer satisfaction survey, to be precise, and I’d ticked the box without giving much thought to it. I must have been about 17, in the early stages of discovering feminism, but I didn’t make a conscious habit of calling myself “Ms”, nor had I spent much time musing on the reasons for or against. His objection to me referring to myself as Ms Sarah Graham was that “it’s for lesbians and spinsters – that’s what people will assume you are.”

Naturally, I’ve made a point of gradually adopting “Ms” on principle ever since, and I’ve felt no shame whatsoever at the oh-so-horrifying thought that strangers might “assume” I’m a lesbian or a spinster.

In many ways, “Madame” in French is already used in a similar way to “Ms”, rather than as a direct equivalent of “Mrs”. You would never address an elderly spinster as “Mademoiselle” and, during my time in Paris, I generally found that in formal contexts – shops, restaurants, trains – I was addressed politely as “Madame”. “Mademoiselle”, on the other hand, often felt slightly patronising or, in the case of the street harassment I’ve written extensively about, downright sleazy.

The arguments against “Miss” and “Mrs” are obvious: as the French government has now acknowledged, they are irrelevant and unnecessary ways of drawing attention to a woman’s marital status, in a way that no adult male ever has to specify. Sadly I can’t imagine we’re likely to see the back of either in the UK, because “Ms” is already seen as an alternative option for the lesbians, spinsters and feminists amongst us, but I hope the change in France will at least spark some debate on the issue.

The most common defence – indeed, the defence that I’ve heard used by my mum – is that she’s proud of being married and why would she want to hide that? Then again, I’m not inclined to believe my dad is ashamed of his marital status. It’s not reflected in his surname, or in his title, he doesn’t even wear a wedding ring because of his intense aversion to jewellery of any kind. None of these factors seem to have been an issue during their 27 happy years of marriage. Frankly, I don’t think my marital status should have any more bearing on my name than it does on my dad’s, my brother’s, or my partner’s – and people may assume all they want!

Related posts: 

• Triple F: The End for ‘Mademoiselle’
• Marie Darrieussecq in the Guardian: Madame, Mademoiselle: in France these are about sex, not respect. Doubly significant because Marie Darrieussecq, via her novel Truismes, was one of the French women who played a role in my feminist conversion.

About a week and a half ago I spoke to Siraj Datoo, editor of The Student Journals, about organising a live blog of We Are The 22% - a talk at the University of Warwick on the underrepresentation of women in politics and journalism.

During this conversation, Siraj commented, “have you noticed the lack of female writers on TSJ? How do you get people to write?”

Well, of course I’d noticed!

I’ve been a Content Manager at The Student Journals since October, and Administrator since the start of this year. Since it was founded only 16 months ago, The Student Journals has already been named runner-up Website of the Year (Guardian Student Media Awards 2011) and 25th best group blog in the country (Total Politics Blog Awards). Described as “a student Comment is Free”, it’s a really fantastic student website and one that I’m enormously proud to be part of. But it, like the rest of the journalism industry, suffers from a lack of women. Currently, only one in five journalists in the UK are women – a figure similar to the number of female MPs – leaving half the population underrepresented in public life. At TSJ, although the core team is split almost equally, we receive very few article submissions from women. As the next generation of writers, student journalists should be consciously looking towards equal representation. Siraj’s question is, of course, the big one: how do you get more women to write?

Following on from our conversation, I went on a recruitment drive for women writers. I posted on Twitter and Facebook that I was looking for more female students to write for us, and was so impressed by the huge number of retweets, comments and emails I received. Within 3 days, I had a list of almost 20 women interested in submitting articles – including two interested in writing for us regularly. The power of social media is fantastic.

The search for new writing talent doesn’t end there; if you’re a student (male or female) and interested in writing for a national student website, email me for more information at info@thestudentjournals.co.uk

In even bigger news, today The Student Journals announced that we are looking to recruit two new deputy editors. Please spread the word, and get in touch if you’re interested.

Like The Student Journals on Facebook

Follow @studentjournals on Twitter

Image: Belgrade Theatre

Nora, stage version by Ingmar Bergman, adapted from Henrik Ibsen’s famously feminist play A Doll’s House.

Belgrade Theatre, Coventry.

28th January – 18th February 2012.

Directed by Patricia Benecke.

The first cultural outing of the newly-formed Coventry Feminist Culture Club was to the Thursday 16th February performance of Nora, followed by a post-show discussion with the director and cast.

The production and the performances were good, rather than outstanding,  but the play itself provoked some very interesting thoughts and discussions.

I’ve never seen or read Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, though I’ve read a couple of essays on it in the last 12 months, and I would have liked to know the original better before going to watch Nora. Bergman’s version, I’m reliably informed, uses Ibsen’s script word for word whilst cutting the play down dramatically, to only 95 minutes long. In doing so, Bergman focuses in on the adult relationships within the play – the relationships between husband and wife, friends, employees, and lovers; Nora and Torvald’s children are entirely absent (“out with the maid”) throughout the performance.

Director Patricia Benecke chose to set her production of Nora in the present day – an interesting decision, which I’m not sure entirely worked. During the post-show discussion she pointed out that many aspects of the play are still hugely relevant today. Perhaps the most relevant feature is that this is a play about money and power - indebted Nora is obsessed with money and Torvald has a new job as manager at the bank, where, his wife ecstatically informs us, he will have a huge salary. The Co-operative Bank may not have quite the same connotations as RBS, but there’s an idea of bankers’ bonuses in there somewhere, and a society obsessed with money is certainly familiar.

Equally, almost 150 years since Ibsen first wrote A Doll’s House, there are sadly still women who feel like dolls in their own relationships; there are still women who break out of the oppressive doll’s house of their marriage, leaving their husband and sometimes their children behind. The image of a woman who is powerless, who has to submit to her husband’s whims and ask his permission for just about everything, is still not so uncommon as to look out of place in a modern setting.

There were, however, parts that just didn’t work for me. As Naomi, founder of the Coventry Feminist Culture Club, pointed out, the power of Ibsen’s original came from its 19th century context: women had far fewer rights than they do today and it was genuinely shocking for a woman to leave an unfulfilling marriage. Similarly, the doctor’s illness didn’t really seem to translate into the modern setting, and his drunkenness towards the end felt overdone, rendering a poignant character almost ridiculous.

Nora’s feminist awakening in the final scene was played very well as a conclusion to her intense trajectory from hyperactive, wound-too-tight children’s toy; to desperate, panic-stricken debtor; to helpless, subjugated doll-wife. The scene was engaging and moving, yet what stood out (and certainly sparked most discussion afterwards!) was the subject of Torvald’s seemingly gratuitous nudity. Whether its purpose was to emphasise Torvald’s physical dominance during sex with his entirely passive doll-wife, to set up his vulnerability during her departure, or merely to get press attention, the nudity felt unnecessary. He could probably have had a more powerful, and less ambiguous, impact if he’d stayed in his pants!

Overall, an enjoyable night out, a great opportunity to meet local feminists, and some interesting discussions, but I’m already planning a follow-up trip to see the real thing, Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, in London this summer.

Related posts:

• Naomi’s review

If you’re in Coventry or Warwickshire and interested in future Coventry Feminist Culture Club trips, the group can be found on Facebook.

Happy Valentine’s Day, darling readers.

My partner and I don’t really go in for the disingenuous consumer-fest of Valentine’s Day much. Today has, however, been renamed ValenThai Takeaway Night – and long may that tradition continue!

There are, of course, more important occasions to mark. (Happy birthday, Mum!)

Today is also the 14th annual V-Day. Established on Valentine’s Day 1998, V-Day is part of Eve Ensler’s international campaign to end violence against women:

V-Day is a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls. V-Day is a catalyst that promotes creative events to increase awareness, raise money, and revitalize the spirit of existing anti-violence organizations. V-Day generates broader attention for the fight to stop violence against women and girls, including rape, battery, incest, female genital mutilation (FGM), and sex slavery.

Throughout February, March and April, groups around the world produce performances of Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues, using the proceeds to support local women’s charities.

Conveniently, you can now buy tickets for Warwick Anti-Sexism Society’s annual production of The Vagina Monologues. There are two performances at the University of Warwick on Thursday 1st and Friday 2nd March, and a final performance in Leamington Spa on Friday 9th March, to mark the end of International Women’s Week.

The profits from all performances will go to supporting V-Day and the absolutely wonderful CRASAC (Coventry Rape And Sexual Abuse Centre). I can’t think of many better causes to give your money to on Valentine’s Day.

Image: Alex Gabriel

Exciting events in my life are like buses. I spend weeks sat at home, reading, writing, translating, fitting in a bit of blogging here and there. But then, all of a sudden, two fantastic events crop up… on the same night.

My partner and I booked tickets to see The Taming of The Shrew at the RSC, Stratford-Upon-Avon, for Thursday 9th February. Within 12 hours of booking the tickets, I found out the University of Warwick was hosting a talk on the underrepresentation of women in public life, with a focus on politics and journalism… also on 9th February.

The event was called We are the 22%, referring to research by Nan Sloane, director of the Centre for Women and Democracy, which shows that the representation of women in politics and journalism is stagnant at 22%. It was organised by Maahwish Mirza of Warwick Labour and the panel featured two of my favourite feminist journalists – Bidisha and Ellie Mae O’Hagan, as well as Professor Shirin Rai (political scientist, Professor of Politics and International Studies and Director of the Gendered Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament Programme) and Gabrielle Shine (European Students For Liberty, contributor at Spiked).

Disappointed about missing this talk on an issue which I’m so fascinated by, I used my powers as administrator of The Student Journals to arrange for one of our writers to live-blog the discussion. If you’re interested, that blog can be found here. My friend Eden, who chaired the discussion, is also writing a commentary on the event, which will be available on The Student Journals soon.

After turning up for long enough to introduce myself to Ellie and Bidisha, we ended up very nearly late for the start of The Taming of The Shrew. The performance was fantastic – jam-packed with drunken hilarity, nudity, fighting, and oozing sexuality. It’s a play full of Shakespeare’s characteristic bawdy humour, which the RSC captured to absolute perfection with their giant bed sheet covering the stage, their unashamedly lewd, raunchy spectacle, and Nick Holder’s excellent portrayal of Christopher Sly, who spent much of the performance covering his dignity with no more than a saucepan. The Taming of The Shrew is comical precisely because it is such an utterly ridiculous play. I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard at a performance of Shakespeare.

But amidst the laughter and the romping, Lisa Dillon and David Caves, as Katharina and Petruchio, powerfully touched on the play’s darker side. It is, after all, a morality play about male-female power dynamics and, as such, seeped in misogyny. It’s very difficult, as a feminist, not to view such things through a feminist lens anyway, but the glaringly awful gender politics would be hard for any modern audience to miss. The cast were incredibly successful in highlighting this inequality, as well as making the entire audience roar with laughter in all the right places.

The wooing of Katharina by Petruchio was full of chemistry, attitude and what Uni Lad might call “banter”. Dillon’s Katharina was every bit as truculent, spirited and independent as I’ve always imagined her, yet sadly her obstinance is no match for the patriarchy. The marriage is arranged, against her will, between her suitor and father.

What follows is the taming or, as I prefer to call it, the abusive marriage in which the wife is bullied into submission and obedience. Caves’ Petruchio, behind a facade of wit and charisma, is a bully. There were moments when I felt thoroughly uncomfortable about his behaviour and her obvious distress. This abuse is not something which died out with Shakespeare; imagine a scenario where your friend’s boyfriend persistently undermines and ridicules her, while you sit by, powerless to intervene, feeling that maybe it’s not your place to say anything. By the end of the play, having watched her gradually cowed into submission, it’s easy to understand why Katharina is the most obedient of the wives on stage, willingly jumping at her husband’s every command and lecturing the other women on their “duties” to their “lords”.

The Taming of the Shrew is very far from a high point in Shakespeare’s analyses of gender politics. Written in the early 1590s, it is amongst his very earliest plays and, naturally, was written against a backdrop of late 16th century contexts. Yet many of Shakespeare’s later plays demonstrate far better engagement with the politics of gender and the concept of patriarchy as a social structure. Indeed, in many cases, Shakespeare’s nuanced treatment of gender is far ahead of his time. Take Love’s Labour’s Lost – the only one of Shakespeare’s comedies to end without a single wedding, because the women declare that their suitors have proved themselves to be fickle and unworthy.

As You Like It and Twelfth Night brilliantly and humorously explore the idea of gender as a performance by having a woman (who herself, originally, would have been played by a boy) convincingly play a man. The incidents of mistaken identity and gender confusion which follow are amongst my favourite moments of self-conscious metatheatre in Shakespeare, which blur the rigid Elizabethan binary of what it means to be masculine and feminine.

Mediocre Dave describes Measure for Measure as one of the best examples of Shakespeare demonstrating “how a patriarchal society mistreats… women. Juliet, for being pregnant outside of marriage. Isabella for being unable to expose the fact that she was sexually harassed by the ruler of the city. [And] Angelo’s secret former wife, Mariana, who is in a bizarre state of social limbo since he left her.”

Finally, my favourite Shakespeare character, Much Ado About Nothing‘s Beatrice, is a wonderful example of a vivacious, gutsy female lead who Shakespeare does not forcibly tame. Tamsin Greig played the role in the RSC’s 2006 production and perfectly epitomised her wit and strength. Beatrice, like many of Shakespeare’s women, is intelligent, independent and principled, whilst conscious of the patriarchal restrictions imposed on her.

“Intelligent, independent and principled” women seems like an appropriate point to bring this post full-circle, back to where I began: Bidisha, Ellie Mae O’Hagan, Professor Shirin Rai, Gabrielle Shine and the knowledge that, almost 400 years after Shakespeare’s death, women remain underrepresented in public life because of the patriarchal restrictions imposed on them. In politics and journalism we are the 22% for one simple reason. In the words of Bidisha:

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. We don’t need to sit around scratching our heads about what the problem is – the problem is sexism. That’s literally it. We’re not making it up.”

Women are still being tamed, but I intend to remain a shrew.

The website was taken down following widespread complaints about an article advocating sexual violence.

According to reports by the BBC, web design student Jamie Streets now faces disciplinary action from Plymouth University over the comments made.

The offending article, ‘Sexual Mathematics’, which was not written by Streets, stated: “if the girl you’ve taken for a drink… won’t ‘spread for your head’, think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds.”

The article was followed by the disclaimer: “Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying ‘surprise’.”

Warwick Students’ Union Welfare Officer Izzy John highlighted the harm this kind of online article can do: “Things spread very quickly on the internet and as such triggering comments or articles can show up on a newsfeed and really upset someone.

“The NUS Women’s Report Hidden Marks revealed that 1 in 7 women students will be sexually assaulted in their time at university, so for me the culture of rape ‘jokes’ cannot go unchallenged.”

Kate Arnold, President of Warwick Anti-Sexism Society (WASS), said, “Uni Lad exposes the latent but pervasive sexism that still exists in our everyday lives.

“We still have a long way to go in the fight for equality, but challenging regressive websites such as Uni Lad is an important part of the battle.”

Uni Lad apologised for the article and the website was taken down at the beginning of the month, but police have since been contacted to investigate, following abusive comments made by Uni Lad fans on Facebook.

Siraj Datoo, a third-year Warwick student and founder of The Student Journals, described the article as “despicable” and the apology as “far from genuine.”

He added: “What is perhaps worse, the website attracted thousands of hits per week – why did it take so long for there to be such a public outcry? Simply pulling the article is not enough, we need these students to change their mind- set.”

Many students on the Uni Lad Facebook page responded to complaints about the article by defending it as “banter”, with no intention of real harm.

One Uni Lad fan however took it a step further, threatening sexual violence against a woman who had objected to the comments. She has reported his threat to the police.

Uni Lad subsequently posted on their Facebook page: “Any fans who make abusive or threatening comments will be banned. Keep the banter friendly LADS!”

Izzy John stressed that “making threats of rape is NEVER a joke and I’m glad that it’s been reported to the police”.

Women’s Campaigns Officer Helen Gould expressed wider concerns about the “lad culture” displayed by sites such as Uni Lad: “[it] simply epitomises a culture in which women are regularly belittled, victimised, and treated as inferior.”

“More than this, it shows the cruel reality of how many people view rape – as a joke, and as something that doesn’t happen to real people.”

Written for The Boar

Photography: Mike Atherton

I love feminist conferences! I say this every time but there’s something so wonderful and inspiring about spending the day in a room full of feminists, knowing that you’re in a safe space, surrounded by like-minded, equality-loving people, full of inspirational stories. I spent yesterday at Go Feminist with the fabulous MadamJMo and my friend Elizabeth from uni, and came away with plenty of food for thought. It was a bit different from the two UK Feminista events I’ve attended (Summer School and FEM11) and I’m not going to write in much detail about the event itself because there are plenty of other bloggers who will do so better, but here are a few reflections…

One of the first things that struck me about Go Feminist was how much effort the organisers had made to ensure the event was accessible – there were signers on stage throughout the event, and speech-to-text subtitling on a big screen. Equally, I think the range of workshops and plenaries successfully covered a more diverse range of topics and people than I’ve seen at a feminist conference before. I met some wonderful feminists and came away with plenty to think about, particularly on intersectionality, inclusion, and the need to keep fighting back against government cuts and reforms which are so damaging to women.

The highlight of the day for me was the plenary session on sexism in popular culture, chaired by the brilliant Bidisha, whose witty observations on gender and subversive sexism in the media were too plentiful to list. It’s a topic I’m fascinated by and the panelists (Joana Burigo, Guerreiras Project; Kealy Hastick, Platform 51; and Paris Lees, Trans Media Watch) provided some fascinating insights. They opened by looking at women in sport who, as Joana said, “get just 10% of sports’ coverage and are often portrayed in terms of bums, boobs and bikinis” or described by broadcasters as “too niche”.

Platform 51′s Kealy Hastick – who, at 22, is the same age as me – spoke about the lack of visible female role models in popular culture. “You can’t be what you can’t see”, she said. “It’s difficult to think of a successful woman who isn’t a sex object.”

Having included “be a better role model” in my Feminist Resolutions, it got me thinking about the female role models that popular culture provides for my foster sisters. Kealy was right – I couldn’t think of many. They live in a cultural world where women are princesses in sparkly dresses or pop stars in next to nothing, where toys are segregated into pink and blue, and where female athletes are praised for their appearance, not their talent. There are some wonderful, diverse, inspirational women out there (Go Feminist is testament to that) and I want to see more of them.

Photography: Beth Granter

On Friday 20^th January, Nadine Dorries’ abstinence education bill will go to its second reading. The bill, which was first voted on in May 2010, proposes that girls should be taught about abstinence as a compulsory part of their sex education. Yes, that’s right: just the girls.

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries is best known for her repeated (failed) attempts to restrict women’s reproductive rights but turned her attention to sex education out of concern about underage sex and teenage pregnancy. According to Dorries, better education about the benefits of abstinence would reduce these by “empowering” girls to just say “no.”

Dorries is right about one thing: sex education as it currently stands is inadequate. In October 2011, a study by sexual advice service Brook found that only 6% of young people believe sex and relationship education (SRE) provides the information they need. SRE needs a drastic overhaul, but this bill is not the answer.

The problem with the bill is glaringly obvious: sex takes two. Only teaching abstinence to girls would play into the out-dated belief that women have no sexual desires of their own while men are unable to control theirs. It’s not only sexist and incorrect, but it places the onus on women to resist men’s desires rather than emphasising the importance of mutual responsibility and consent.

Most offensively, Dorries even claimed that teaching girls to say “no” would reduce child sexual abuse. This kind of victim-blaming attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

Young people need more information, not moral judgements. There is significant evidence from the US that abstinence education alone does not reduce rates of pregnancy or STIs; what actually reduces these things is fact-based, comprehensive sex education. It is currently compulsory for UK schools to teach the biology of sexual reproduction but they are not obliged to teach other elements of SRE. Schools are provided with government guidance for sex and relationship education, but many young people still do not receive all the information they need to make informed choices.

A demonstration against Dorries’ bill will take place outside the Houses of Parliament from 10.30am on 20^th January, organised by Beth Granter and supported by Youth Fight For Jobs, The British Humanist Association, Feminist Fightback, Abortion Rights UK, Queers Against The Cuts and Parents & Carers for Sex & Relationships Education.

If Nadine Dorries’ proposed amendment goes through on Friday, it would be a real backwards step for progressive sex education. It’s very simple: if you’re going to teach abstinence, teach it to everyone – and then make sure they also know about consent, contraception and relationships, covering all sexual orientations. Responsibility for sex should not be gendered.

You can find more information about the campaign and how to contact your MP on Facebook.

Written for The Student Journals

Over the last month or so I’ve become completely preoccupied (some might say obsessed…) with the first assessed essay of my final year as an undergraduate. Having spent last year in Paris it’s the first essay I’ve written in over 18 months that actually counts towards my degree. It’s also on a topic that I love, so it’s both extremely enjoyable and very, very stressful. I’m writing about Jane Eyre and Rebecca, two of my favourite novels, from a feminist perspective – there’s so much to say that my main struggle is going to be fitting it all in!

I spent most of yesterday evening concentrating on Jane Eyre. It’s one of those books that so many women read as teenagers and then read again later in a totally different way. To the younger reader it is so often read as a romantic bildungsroman, with Rochester a worthy hero to complete Jane’s rags to riches ascent; to an older, more cynical reader it becomes something more complicated – the relationship between Jane and Bertha, the “mad” first Mrs Rochester, locked away in her attic, becomes fascinating and compelling. Bertha ceases to be merely an obstacle and becomes a source of intrigue; to the reader who’s read Jean Rhys’s spectacular prequel, Wide Sargasso Sea, Bertha is transformed further into the victim of a patriarchal, colonialist system. Even reading Rebecca, Daphne du Maurier’s 20th century classic, so much of which mirrors Jane Eyre, dramatically alters your perception of Bronte’s original.

The question that preoccupies me the most as I read, think and write about Jane Eyre is the question of Bertha’s supposed madness. Is Bertha really mad? Is she mad simply as a result of being held captive for years, like an animal, in an attic? Or is “mad” simply a 19th century patriarchal code for a difficult wife who refuses to conform to her role and must be “dealt with”? Too rebellious, too outspoken and too sexual. Given how frequently Bronte juxtaposes Bertha’s madness with Jane’s fears, frustrations and desires, I suspect the latter. Unlike Rochester’s violent first wife, Jane (as an adult, at least) feels unable to act on those feelings, but they exist nonetheless:

It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquility; they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it. Millions are condemned to a stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot. Nobody knows how many rebellions beside political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.

Virginia Woolf didn’t like Bronte writing “in a rage where she should write calmly… foolishly where she should write wisely”, but I love it; for me, it’s part of the novel’s rebellious power. What saddens me though, nearly two centuries after Bronte wrote this passage, is just how relevant it still is. We’re still “madwomen”, rebelling against the constraints set on us, condemned and laughed at for pointing out sexism and restriction in our lives and the lives of those “condemned to a stiller doom” than ours; I still so often have cause to write in the same “rage” as Charlotte Bronte wrote in 1847.